By Paul Homewood
Ed Davey, the UK Secretary of State for Energy, has made a speech attacking the press for reporting the views of climate sceptics, saying
“But some sections of the press are giving an uncritical campaigning platform to individuals and lobby groups. This is not the serious science of challenging, checking and probing. This is destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism born of vested interest, nimbyism, publicity seeking contraversialism or sheer blinkered, dogmatic, political bloody-mindedness. This tendency will seize upon the normal expression of scientific uncertainty and portray it as proof that all climate change policy is hopelessly misguided. “
My first reactions were:-
1) Astonishment that a government minister should make such Orwellian threats against the freedom of the press.
2) What platform? With an extremely few exceptions, the MSM have slavishly followed the consensus position, and their journalists have babyishly failed to check basic facts. (The Telegraph article, reporting the speech talks, of John Cook’s paper, stating “One recent survey of 12,000 academic papers on climate change found 97 per cent agree human activities are causing the planet to warm. “)
Until the Mail’s David Rose published an article last year, pointing out that global temperatures had not increased in 16 years, most of the public would have been totally unaware of this fact. So much for “sceptical reporting”!.
So here’s my open letter to Ed Davey, explaining why there is a pressing need for more debate, not less.
Dear Ed
Having heard your call for the media to shut down their reporting of the views of those sceptical of the consensus position on climate change, can I offer you ten reasons why such a move would be wrong, and why there should be more public discussions of the topic, not less.
1) Global Temperatures
It is fact that global temperatures have flatlined in recent years. Current temperatures, for instance, during an ENSO neutral period, are lower than the 10-Year average. You claim that this is “misreading the evidence”, but surely the public have a right to see these facts, just as they would with, say, unemployment figures, regardless of how inconvenient they might be.
In any event, it is impossible to deny that this flatlining, whatever the cause may be, has huge implications for future projections of global temperatures. As such, this should be at the very centre of public debate.
2) Climate Models
It is also a fact that nearly every climate model has grossly overestimated global temperatures over the last two decades or so. There are many examples I could give, going back to James Hansen’s predictions in the 1980’s, but let’s look at a couple closer to home, produced by the Met Office, who you praise for their excellence.
In 2004, Vicky Pope told us that global temperatures would be 0.3C warmer within 10 years. Reality? Temperatures are actually lower.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/shock-news-vicky-pope-not-infallible/
And, more recently, in 2007 the Met were still making similar predictions. And again, they were abysmally wrong.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/met-office-decadal-forecast2007-version/
Are you seriously suggesting that the public do not have the right to be told about such utter failures? And do you deny that the failure of these and other models does not have huge implications for climate model projections in future decades?
3) Climate Sensitivity
At the heart of the debate over climate change, although you appear to deny there is any such debate, is the matter of climate sensitivity. The predictions of the IPCC, Met Office, and many others have been based around the concept that positive feedbacks will lead to much greater temperature rise than would otherwise be the case.
There is, in fact, little or no evidence to support this contention; it is essentially a product of climate modelling. There are many scientists, who fundamentally disagree with this conclusion, and it is not acceptable for you to try to marginalise these scientists, nor close down debate on the issue.
You say “Of course there will always be uncertainties within climate science”, but the matter of climate sensitivity is much, much more than “an uncertainty”. It actually goes to the heart of the matter.
4) Climate Projections for the UK
The Met Office has done much work analysing how the UK would be affected by climate change, and this work has been fed into government planning, via, for instance, DEFRA’s Climate Change Risk Assessment Report or the UK Climate Impacts Programme.
Not only have most of the Met’s predictions failed to materialise, but in many cases the opposite has occurred, e.g.
a) Winters have been drier, not wetter as predicted.
b) Summers have been wetter, not drier as predicted.
c) Heatwaves have become much less frequent, and summer temperatures have been declining in recent years, in total contrast to projections.
d) Similarly, annual temperatures are in decline. CET has been steadily dropping for the last decade, and is now well below the 1981-2010 average.
I realise that these are all relatively short term events, but they hardly inspire much confidence in the Met’s ability to predict future climate change. Again, it is utterly wrong to shut down debate in this area.
5) Extreme weather
It is frequently predicted that climate change will lead to more “extreme weather”, and it seems that, nearly every time an extreme event occurs, the media wheel out some expert, (often a representative of Greenpeace or the like), to tell us that this was what climatologists had predicted.
The reality is that there is no evidence at all to back up these claims, a fact that even the IPCC have admitted.
A good example of this is the recent EF-5 tornado in Oklahoma. I have yet to see any media outlet in the UK explain that the frequency and severity of tornadoes in the US is actually low by historical standards.
Far from suppressing debate on these issues, the press should be providing much more in the way of facts to the public.
6) Dissenting Scientists
You promote the idea that the “science is settled”. This, as you should know, is far from the truth. There are literally thousands of qualified scientists who disagree with the IPCC position. For instance, see here.
This does not necessarily mean that they believe GHG emissions will not lead to any warming at all. It does, though, mean that their views should be reported, because if they are right, it would have a huge impact on public policy.
7) Natural Factors
The role that natural factors play in climate change, both that we have seen and expect to see, is one where there is a great deal of scientific debate. Yet, when the IPCC was set up, it had no remit to investigate this.
These are matters that should be fully discussed in the open.
8) IPCC
I believe it is fair to say that government policy on climate change draws heavily on IPCC reports. However, there have been a number of criticisms in recent years, about the way that the IPCC operates and how its reports are put together.
The press would be failing in its duty, if it did not publish these criticisms, and the views of scientists who disagree with the IPCC consensus.
9) Public Policy
It is a fact that climate change science and public policy are inextricably interlinked. To shut down debate on the former has the effect of also shutting down debate on the latter.
This is not acceptable in a democracy.
10) Energy Policy
You conclude by saying
“Those who argue against all the actions we are taking to reduce emissions, without any serious and viable alternative, are asking us to take a massive gamble with the planet our children will inherit,”
In doing so, you conflate climate science with energy policy. They are in fact two totally separate things.
Whether we agree or not on climate science, it does not follow that we agree with your energy policy. Indeed, there is no evidence whatever that it will make any noticeable difference to global temperatures.
Your own Department confirmed this to me last year.
In Summary
Many people in this country are concerned about what sort of country their children will inherit, if your policies are carried through.
On a matter of such import, I find it ludicrous and insulting that you seem reluctant for the public to be given all the facts, and to allow them to make their own minds up.
Far from being a hotbed of disinformation, the Media has, for the most part, been sadly lacking in its reporting of climate change issues, and the full range of scientific views.
I would have hoped that you would want to encourage the reporting of all aspects of this topic, rather than restrict it to the bits that are convenient to you.
Yours sincerely
========================================================
Related articles
- Ed Davey attacks papers who report ‘destructive’ climate sceptics (telegraph.co.uk)
- Ed Davey, the UK’s Energy Bully (nofrakkingconsensus.com)
- The Intolerance of Climate Change Zealots (iaindale.com)
- Long List Of Warmist Scientists Say Global Warming Has Stopped…Ed Davey Is Clueless About What’s Going On (notrickszone.com)
- Ed Davey makes the silliest speech ever (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- Ed Davey has his knickers in a twist about climate sceptics (tallbloke.wordpress.com)
- Climate change sceptics are just ‘blinkered publicity-seekers’ blasts top minister (express.co.uk)
- Minister attacks climate sceptics (bbc.co.uk)
And so say all of us.
Excellent!
But I don’t expect Ed Davey to reply. After all, he thinks that the ‘science is settled’.
Ed Davey doesn’t understand how isolated he is becoming. The arrogant climate catastrophists have been left high and dry by a stalling climate, and their high-volume blustering and threats no longer carry the weight that they once did.
The entire Co2 scam is just an excuse for UK politicians to inflict this on the most vulnerable people in UK society !
http://nollyprott.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/green-holocaust-2/
Well said.
There are failed predictions that need to be acknowledged.
An increase in intellectual honesty from both sides would help.
Now, would be a good time to part with past error.
Climate change supporters should stop trying to produce alarm by overreaching with claims of catastrophe. At the same time, skeptics would do well to acknowledge and repudiate false claims as well, many of which harm their credibility, as does overreach by CC advocates.
Potholer54 provides examples of incompletely presented information.
Some simple numbers on the effect of CO2 concentration on temperature
The temperature increasing effect of atmospheric CO2 is known and universally accepted to diminish logarithmically with increasing concentration: these proportions are agreed by both Catastrophic Global Warming alarmists and also skeptical authorities:
Immutable historical components:
CO2 essential for photosynthesis and plant life 0-200 ppmv 86.6%
pre-industrial element prior to 1850 200 -300 ppmv 5.0%
since 1850 (IPCC asserts all man-made to date) 300 400 ppmv 2.3%
totaling 94.9%
Remaining components that climate change policy could affect in future:
400 -500 ppmv 1.6%
500- 600 ppmv 1.3%
600 – 700 ppmv 1.0%
700 – 800 ppmv 0.7%
totaling 4.6%
To understand exactly what is being disputed and what might be achieved by political action the table below gives the likely warming (without positive or negative feedbacks) that will occur with an increase of CO2 from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv assuming that the amount of CO2 released by all world nations in future is reduced in future by 50%. It shows the impact of the following countries or country groups. Both sceptical and alarmist assessments are shown.
CO2 emissions 2011 2011 % sceptic IPCC average
‘ooo,ooo tonnes
USA 6,017 17.7% 0.013°C 0.108°C
JP RU CA 4,457 13.1% 0.010°C 0.080°C
KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW 4,115 12.1% 0.009°C 0.074°C
China HK 9,072 26.7% 0.020°C 0.163°C
India 1,798 5.3% 0.004°C 0.032°C
Rest of World (~160 Nations) 4,514 13.3% 0.010°C 0.081°C
EU (27) 4,061 11.9% 0.009°C 0.073°C
Germany 803 2.4% 0.002°C 0.014°C
UK 511 1.5% 0.001°C 0.009°C
France 376 1.1% 0.001°C 0.007°C
Rest of EU 2,372 7.0% 0.005°C 0.043°C
World Total 34,033 100.0% 0.075°C 0.612°C
So the impact for the whole of the EU (27) is between 0.009°C and 0.073°C and for the UK the range is between 0.001°C and 0.009°C that is between 1 – 9 thousandths of degree centigrade.
To achieve this irrelevant and miniscule result the UK government is willing to annihilate the UK economy to try to solve a problem that does not exist.
Western politicians should “Have the courage to do nothing”.
if the formatting does not work WUWT is not good at tabs I have done my best with it
Davey has a way with words though, doesn’t he? Is my skepticism born of ‘nimbyism’ or ‘political bloody-mindedness’? What the heck is nimbyism anyway?!?
Political bloody-mindedness. Wow. I don’t really know what that’s supposed to mean in this context either, but goodness, it sounds awful.
🙂
Bravo Sir, well said
This is starting to look like an EU wide trend. German environment minister Altmaier had his attack dogs at the UBA publish a pamphlet listing German and international skeptics.
The EU is quickly becoming the next USSR as far as freedom of thought is concerned.
I wouldn’t expect him to reply, or even read it…
Mark Bofill says:June 5, 2013 at 8:21 am
‘nimbyism’ is from the acronym: NIMBY=’Not In My Back Yard’. Ted Kennedy thought windmills were good as long as he didn’t have to see them = “NIMBY”.
Quite well done. The only thing I’d like to have seen added was reference to the BBC policy on climate reporting.
Anyone who wishes to write and tell Mr Davey what they thought of his speech can do so by email
daveye@parliament.uk
I have done so and attached a link to this open letter. I think it would be nice if many more people did the same.
I got a gag reflex just reading the title Secretary of State for Energy. Politically based science has a certain stench to it like a rotting corpse.
As far as I am concerned, the Conservative party are now a total waste of time and are a dead duck in the water.
Is it any wonder that UKIP are biting their heels ?
This guy in charge of our Energy system is about to watch it crumble beneath him. Then they will still want us to vote for them.
Amen and yea verily.
Excellent. And I’ll remind readers that in Germany two associations representing journalists recently condemned government speech attacking critical journalism when it comes the climate change and denounced governments issuing “black lists” on these journalists. It’s thinking such as Davey’s that sow the seeds of tyranny and is why the public is becoming increasingly distrustful of government. People aren’t there to be in the service of politicians suffering delusions of climate catastrophes.
@Bofill
nimbyism – the philosophy of NIMBY – Not In My Back Yard.
Ed Davey is an adherent to his own form of NIMBY –
where his “back yard” is the Speaker’s Corner and the court of public debate.
Nicely done. The trouble is trying logic and facts when the speech is based on a political-religious mind-set. Either he is aware of the data and deliberately chooses to ignore and misrepresent the facts or he is so confirmed in his beliefs that he hasn’t bothered to look at the facts. In either case, he will not be swayed by the letter.
DirkH says:
June 5, 2013 at 8:30 am
That’s why it is known as the EUSR!!!!!
My first reactions were:-
1) Astonishment that a government minister should make such Orwellian threats against the freedom of the press.
——————————————————
Astonishment? Really? Such is standard operating procedure for the left.
Nice piece, but this sentence is self-contradictory:
I realize that “far from being a hotbed of disinformation” is meant to repudiate Davey’s view, but the remainder of the sentence “sadly lacking” etc. points to ways in which the Media DO function as “a hotbed of disinformation” (though not for the reasons imagined by Davey). If the Media present mainly one-sided propagandistic accounts the that IS functioning as “a hotbed of disinformation.”
Man Bearpig (June 5, 2013 at 8:38 am)
To be fair to the Tories, Ed Davey is a Lib Dem – as if it wasn’t ovbious!
In re Daviey’s e-mail. Whaaat, UK MP’s haven’t learned from the American Federal Executive’s administration to maintain different public and secret e-mail accounts in order to avoid unwanted information/communication?
Perhaps someone could explain to Mr Davey the consequences of silencing Einstein because Newton had “settled the science”.
Well, perhaps someone could first explain to Mr Davey who Einstein and Newton actualy were.
And what they discovered.
And…
Oh well, never mind…
The Global Warming Petition Project has over 31,000 signatures of American Scientists(9,000 are PhDs) that reject CAGW and it’s consequences. http://www.petitionproject.org/ Time to speak up.
He is local to me. I have tweeted to him.
https://twitter.com/omotforest/status/342312421010059265
More evidence that the religion of government has subverted the science of climate.
Sounds a bit scared, doesn’t he?
Is this the same British government arresting people for what they said on social media after the murder of Lee Rigby? Ed Davey should just come out and say he is for the formation of the ‘Thought Police’. I’m sure he enjoyed the 10:10 video!
Mark Bofill says: June 5, 2013 at 8:21 am
“…What the heck is nimbyism anyway?!?…”
Labeling, dividing and naming has always worked in politics (given the bovine herd following nature of the public) and NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) is one of the most convenient terms to bandy about.
On the surface it implies some privileged person is unreasonably demanding more than his fair share. In truth is all about distant groups pointing the finger and chanting as some one protests at having something taken from them, or something they had is to be devalued. Usually it is for a cause that is considered to benefit these groups who are likely to be completely unaffected by any negatives arising from the situation.
In reality, if any of us were to be put in that position (yes, including the righteous chanters) we too would go through all the normal avenues of objection and protest we could find. And it is a reasonable thing to do.
In fact, I am very, very sure that should someone impinge on property or rights which Ed Davey already considers his, he would not graciously and humbly hand it over or give it up … the complaints and whining would likely be heard across the country.
Then he may find it was his turn to be so labeled.
Paul Homewood:
A good ‘letter’, and one I could link to when next I write to my MP – whenever I want to read his responses as dictated to him by Greenpiss; WWtF; or any one of his equally non-worldly-wise Spads (Davey surely works on the principle of never employing anyone who may possibly be brighter than he is. Consequently, his dept is (one of) the most dysfunctional in our excuse for a government.
But, one thing I had hoped you would include, and which I shall make sure is mentioned to my MP, and that is the Cooked 97% paper: I want him to know that it is NOT 97% of 12k papers, but more like 97% of 30% of the papers – except we do not know for sure because his gods in science have not released their data to us mere mortals.
I shall remind my MP that it was government, in creating the Advertising Standards Authority, who made sure that the claim of ‘8 out of 10 cats whose owners expressed and opinion preferred Whiskas’ was made to reflect the more accurate picture. Davey does not represent his constituents views if he thinks their dissent should be banned..
Davey is a politician. He could not care less what he says in support of the cause. The cause, of course, is raising taxes from the hapless electorate and supporting the global ‘consensus’ in order to redistribute wealth. Good letter Paul but you are wasting your breath.
From the Wikitubes…
“he furthered his education at Jesus College, Oxford[2] where he was awarded a first class BA degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics in 1988.”
Nope. No science other than the political variety. Why is it I already knew that before even looking up the bio of Edward Davey?
Ed Davey, who ‘…doesn’t even know which way around his name goes…'(allegedly) can get his blank visage, numpty dreams and empty message on the tellybox, or in every ‘news’paper any time he likes.
Us?
Not so much.
(nice try though Paul)
Snotrocket
But, one thing I had hoped you would include, and which I shall make sure is mentioned to my MP, and that is the Cooked 97% paper:
Good point.
I have though raised a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission against both the Mail and Telegraph reporting on “97% of 12000 papers blah blah…”
I suggest others do the same, every time they see similar.
DEFRA’s Climate Change Risk Assessment RePort
C-CRAP – what a great acronym for such a waste.
By and large, I am a peaceful man.
But I am absolutely convinced that the hardcore warmists like Ed Davey will have to be tarred and feathered and will have to be driven out of town with torches and pitchforks, to get rid of this unholy brood one day.
But not separate responsibilities. Davey is the Minister for Energy and Climate Change.
Half his department is funded for the climate change part.
He has to keep the two issues muddled or it is easier to cut his department down. That would save the country money but a disaster for him politically as the civil service would see him as a liability.
Don’t just blame the politicians. The climate change agenda is entrenched in establishment thinking. And that includes the civil service.
The solution?
I don’t know.
Perhaps more philosophy of science in the Oxbridge PPE courses?
There’s a difference between ignorant speakers making ridiculous claims (free speech) and government officials quashing free speech to force adherence to government views (fascism). As far as I can tell, Secretary Davey has not explicitly proposed using government power to limit speech, but he definitely has trouble understanding atmospheric physics using his…wait for it…Oxford BA degree in philosophy, politics and economics.
Call me skeptical (heh heh), but I doubt, as a politician, he really cares; all that matters is he leans in the proper direction when the wind blows.
As long as politicians are not really held accountable, they don’t care about being credible; it’s only important they remain electable.
Ps: Wind blows in several directions; 10 years from now, Mr Davey’s ethical vacuum will easily allow him to claim he was actually on the forefront of exposing “CAGW” as an academic fraud.
George Orwell, 1984: “…the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them….”
The thing is, Davey, mad, bad and dangerous to know, doesn’t give a stuff about facts, science truth or the electorate. He is about to nod through the NAVITUS Wind farm off the south coast of England which will not save the planet, will kill a lot of seabirds, will be very expensive. But he is untouchable. There is no discussion. The UK democratic process is finished. I wish I lived in a country that wasn’t run by liars and idiots. I wish I just trusted Big Brother. Education can be a curse.
Paul, you have motivated me to write to the Prime Minister to see if he is going to stand by whilst one of his ministers tries to shut down discussion on one of the most costly and important issues facing this (UK) nation today.
Excellent letter.
I am learning something new every day about British Politics, like Ministers calling to stifle the debate on policies and get away with it, like MPs accepting payments many times over their official salaries from private companies, and then openly promoting policies that would benefit those companies.
If this is not grotesque display of corruption and failure of accountability, I don’t know what is.
I believe there can be a tipping point, but not in planetary climate. A tipping point when all of the many years of corruption and politial posturing will come together, and industries will leave in droves, lights will go out and currency will depreciate catastrophically. This could be precipitated by a good long European-style cold winter when UK will run out of capacity to power itself, lights will go out, businesses crippled, and many will just die unable to heat their homes.
It escapes me how such an important topic as Energy Policy can be affected by such nonsense as attempt at regulating World Climate, and the responsibility for both given to just one deluded man. I find it unbelievable that UK can have such an establishment as Department for Energy and CLIMATE CHANGE. They might as well have Ministry for Magic, or Ministry for Health and Shaman Relations, or Ministry of Defence and Religion. It is just irresponsible beyond all belief.
Clear, concise, and to the point. Brilliant work.
This coming winter here in the UK will be one to watch.
lt looks like the jet stream could be setting us up for a repeat of the 1962/63 winter.
lf it does then Davey boy is going to end up with a lot of egg on this face.
Nice letter, Paul.
I think (probably naively ), that many people are desperately looking for the exits.
Can “we” open one ?
Blame it all on human nature. Who could argue ?
Ed Davey was a PPE student who has never had a proper job apart from a brief spell in postal services. He only has his current political job because his predecessor, the Liar Huhne, went to prison. So, spectacularly unqualified to comment on science, spectacularly wrong on “Climate Science” and spectacularly stupid to suggest muzzling the press as a reasonable act.
Paul is not the only person to publicly respond to Mr Davey.
“A dangerously deluded energy policy and why the greens want to hide the truth about your soaring bills
By Christopher Booker
Without question, it must have been one of the dottiest public utterances ever delivered by a British Cabinet minister.
This was the extraordinary speech made on Monday — at an event staged by the Met Office — by Ed Davey, our Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
What inevitably attracted attention was Mr Davey’s attack on those ‘sections of the Press’ who dare question any aspect of the way his energy policy for Britain has become wholly skewed and dominated by the belief that the world is in the grip of global warming.
The timing of his outburst against ‘destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism’ in the Press was not accidental: it was to preface yesterday’s Commons debate on the mammoth Energy Bill by which he plans to ‘decarbonise’ our electricity industry.
The rest of the Christopher Booker response is at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2335982/CHRISTOPHER-BOOKER-A-dangerously-deluded-energy-policy-greens-want-hide-truth-soaring-bills.html
During the public consultation process undertaken by the UK government on the issue of ‘Gay Marriage’ It was found that 87% of people polled were against it. Instead of stopping there, our ‘glorious’ leader David Cameron announced 53% of people were in favor. As one of the lords in in our parliament this week stated “Cameron in effect turned his vote into 500,000 to gain that majority.”
So, if you think that the UK government gives a damn about the will of the people, or democracy, you are sadly mistaken. They will never give up on their climate scam and they will go to any lengths to maintain it.
In the UK, unless UKIP is elected, the battle was lost long ago.
The only temperatures rising here in the UK are caused by the patronising, amateurish, I know better than thou, pompous, sanctimonious torrents of naive slurry, spewed out by Davey and his fellow LibCon government and official Labour opposition. They are all awful, the UK establishment is now crammed full with nodding, eco-donkeys who fail to appreciate empirical evidence, are incapable of seeing beyond what they think is the bleeding obvious when it comes to making a policy decision, they call everything the goes wrong an unforseen consequence and a lesson learned which they immediately forget. No spine, no willingness to take responsibility or be accountable for screwing up the economy, health service, domestic energy policy etc etc whilst time and again they are found with their noses in the trough.
What davey forgot to mention is the plague that will eventually descend on all their houses.
Well done, Paul Homewood.
A good logic argument , sadly Ed does not do logic and cares little for any good but his own. Which is probable got the job in the first place .
Paul Homwood wrote: “I have though raised a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission against both the Mail and Telegraph reporting on “97% of 12000 papers blah blah…”
I would be surprised if the PCC uphold any complaint. They will simply say that the papers (reporters) reported accurately what the ‘experts’ had said.
Amen to that. Thank you, Paul.
kretchetov says:
June 5, 2013 at 10:55 am
They might as well have Ministry for Magic, or Ministry for Health and Shaman Relations, or Ministry of Defence and Religion. It is just irresponsible beyond all belief.
I forget where I read it, but our Department for Overseas Development recently spent quite a lot of our money setting up a consultation process, in an African country, between modern weather forecasters and tribal rain makers, because the rain makers were losing their former position of authority amongst the ordinary tribespeople. (sorry for the vagueness)
————————————–
Every time I see a press photo of Mr. Ed (Davey),* he has his mouth open. If a degree in PPE had taught him to keep his mouth shut and his mind open, at least some of the time, it could have saved us much trouble.
* Apologies for an insulting comparison towards a TV horse.
taxed says:
June 5, 2013 at 11:00 am
/////////////////////////////
Further to the above post, I consider that the letter should have highlighted that there is no such thing as ‘global’ warming/’global’ climate change. To the extent that there are changes, it is a regional matter and the effects of change are also felt on a regional basis.
Under section 4, the letter briefly touched upon CET. Irrespective of what might be happening globally, as far as the UK is concerned, the UK government needs to be alive to what is happening in the UK and thus the CET data set is paramount. I consider that more emphasis should have been placed on this.
Whilst this century, there has been no global rise in temperatures, as far the UK is concerned, it has cooled by 0.5degC during this period. This drop (0.5degC) is more than half of the late 20th century warming!
Of even more significance is the CET winter data. Since 2000 CET winter temperatures have fallen by almost 1.5degC (which is of course more than the 20th century warming!). Should this trend continue 9and the Met office are not forecasting a rise before 2017 at the earliest), it will have a significant effect on energy demands. Bear in mind that this Spring, the UK almost ran out of gas reserves and was only about 6 hours away from rationing industrial heavy users.
I am of the view that the letter should have coupled CET winter data with windfarm performance during winter periods when it was extremely cold and frigid with little wind due to a blocking high sitting over or near to the UK. The minister needs to be alive as to how much energy is produced by windfarms during such conditions (the last few winters suggest that during such conditions rather than producing about 23% of the installed/base plate capacity, the windfarms were producing only about 3 to 5% of installed/base plate capacity). This has serious implications on UK energy policy, particularly due to its increased vulnerability brought about by the recent closure of several coal fired power stations, and this should be brought to the minister’s attention.
Finally, on this point, the letter could have coupled the falling CET winter temperatures with the increased winter mortality rates and made the minister reflect upon the effect, in human terms, that his energy price stratergy is bringing about..
Ed Davey is a tw*t in the northern English understanding of the word.
“…portray it as proof that all climate change policy is hopelessly misguided. ”
And the down side is?…..
Great letter.
Not only is the UK’s carbon output so low that it will make no significant difference to global carbon output whatever our energy policy, the nation simply cannot afford the economic lunacy of it’s existing ‘green’ policy.
In a table of ‘Climate change performance’ published recently by ‘Germanwatch’ the UK was ranked 7th in the world, with the USA 33 places below. In the UN table of GDP per capita, the UK is an abysmal 22nd. We may be up among the prize winners in the green beauty contest, but the economy is demonstrably failing to generate the wealth needed to support our education, health, and welfare services in the face of an aging population. Yet we indulge in green stupidities such as a carbon price floor, subsidised wind power and the decommisioning of economically viable coal fired power stations with no planned replacements to keep the lights on.
Fortuitously we are sitting on massive reserves of shale gas and although their discovery is an inconvenient truth for Mr Davy and his henchmen, they have the potential to generate the wealth that the UK so desperatey needs and, if quickly exploited, to keep the lights on.
This should go to the media, too. Might wake some of them up.
This is the same Ed Davey who, in his previous ministerial position at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, wished to introduce a simplified form of business accounting which included the same figure twice and a balance sheet which did not balance.
What hope do we have for a sensible energy policy in the UK with someone like this at the helm?
Of course he might be better than his predecessor who has recently been released from prison (subject to electronic tagging) having been convicted of perverting the course of justice – possibly slightly better than trying to pervert the course of truth.
Contrasting climate stats with employment figures. Moronic. Employment figures are just about the most politically manipulated numbers going!
The reason for the desperation is because the media in the UK have begun to break ranks. This was invevitable. Climategate, lack of warming – what does Ed expect. The media have to consider “what that if the sceptics are right afterall”.
Ed Davey, the jig is up.
Paul
Further to my post at 01:14pm which mentioned a couple of points which I consider that your letter ought to have addressed, it would have been a good idea to have raised the false assumptions made by DECC as to the potential savings that consumers will receive.
DECC estimates that the consumer will save some £166 per year due to more efficient products and better insulation. Leaving aside how much money the consumer would have to fork out to acquire those more efficient products (eg., cost of new boiler, washing machine, fridge etc), it appears that the governments estimation is wildly over optomistic. A report has recently been prepared by Consumer Futures which assesses the annual savings at just £31. See the Daily telegraph article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/10100797/Green-measures-will-only-save-31-by-2020-says-official-consumer-protection-body.html
Linked to this point is the additional costs that UK consumers are already paying as a consequence of the government’s renewable policy and other government initiatives. This is something that is not widely known since it has not received much attention in the MSM. The cost of energy supply represents only half the total electricity bill. The other half is made up by subsideis paid for energy from rewables and government initaitive in subsidising home insulation and fuel poverty.
The head of Scottish & Southern Energy was recently interviewed on HardTalk by the BBC. He clearly stated that the cost of supply was only half the bill, 25% was accounted for by subsidies for renewables amnd 25% for government policies such as subsidised home insulation and providing help for those in fuel poverty.
If the average annual electricity bill is say £600pa, the consumer is already paying £300 per annum because of government energy policy. If one is not a dual fuel user and has electric heating then the average annual bill will be about £1470 of which some £720 goes to paying for the governent’s green energy policy. It is ironic that if energy prices had not been driven so high, there would be less people in fuel poverty and thus the 25% which added to the bill (so that those who can afford to pay help those who cannot afford to pay) could actually be removed.
Of course, electrity bills will rocket due to the carbon tax (floor price £16 per tonne with escalators going up to about £500 per tonne according to Mark Reckless) and because the cost of supply is being increased by the decommissioning of coal fired generation.
These are points that ought to be pointed out to Mr Davey.
But these conditions are placed upon the British Consumer, by being forced upon Ed Davey (and his predecessor, the disgraced Huhne) in the following fashion…….
Davey gets all his information, not from his own views, which are irrelevant, but from the pseudo-independent Climate Change Committee. They tell us at their website just jow they receive their instructions and why they do then advise UK Government Miniosters accordingly.
“United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which sets out the framework for multilateral cooperation to tackle climate change. The UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol puts binding obligations on industrialised countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. All nations under the UNFCCC are working on a new protocol to tackle climate change by 2015.”
theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/the-legal-landscape/
Then who are these UNFCCC people anyway ?
it’s our old pals ….. The EU Bureaucrats again ?
Just like the so called “Friends of The Club of Rome”,
The so called UNFCCC is based in Germany, and sets
targets for everybody, in Britain via this unelected
lobby group, with vested interest, and feeding Lord Deben
with vast reams of superfluous falderol, which he then passes
on to the vacuous mind of Ed Davy and his ilk !!!
UNFCCC secretariat
Haus Carstanjen
Martin-Luther-King-Strasse 8
53175 Bonn
Germany
unfccc.int/2860.php
It is all based on some idea that we must still adhere to some international treaty which expired at midnight on 31st December 2012. These “directives” and all the so called Carbon restrictions, therefor have NO LEGAL FORCE WHATSOEVER, and thus no individual, company, or indeed Government has any obligation in Law to follow those diktats by the UNFCCC. In reality they are mere suggestions, nothing more. Everyone should refuse to comply with their fatuous wish-wash.
Leaving Ed Davey’s asinine and intolerant remarks aside, the BBC article is well worth reading for other aspects. There is, for example, this gem:
“Last week, for instance, the green-minded Tory MP Tim Yeo, who has laid the amendment calling for 2030 targets, was “outed” as a closet climate sceptic after saying there was a chance that climate change could be natural. Mr Yeo insists that he went on to say that the overwhelming consensus is that climate change is man-made, but this crucial fact was drowned out.”
Astonishing. Yeo’s remark was undeniably true. Climate change is, of course, perfectly natural. It is also affected by human activity, by how much we’re not sure. Guesses cover a wide range, and current measurements suggest even this range is inaccurate. And yet some are willing to burn Yao at the stake as a witch for a perfectly true remark.
The second gem from this article is that many parliamentarians — even tories — support a bill to accelerate Britain’s adoption of green energy sources. Not enough elderly die from energy poverty as it stands, I guess. It would seem that these politicians are deeply out of touch with their constituents.
Notice the stylish photo of smokestacks spewing black looking pollution out? Yeah, the good old black carbon. Quality journalism from the impartial BBC as ever. Hope you Brits all enjoy being forced to feed them.
He must have been staring too long at all those windmills going around & around & around…
What the hell……
Sent the link to news@Sky.com
@ rabbit says:
June 5, 2013 at 4:34 pm
Unfortunately, science doesn’t even know the sign of whatever human effect there may be on climate, ie whether the net result of our activities is to cool or warm the planet. But in either case, the anthropogenic factor is negligible.
Boffill: Nymbyism I wouid venture to say, comes from Ninbim a city in northern NSW Wales, Australia which became famous for Pot smoking hippies from Sydney in the 80’s who no doubt are 100% behind AGW. Anyway as I postured here I think 10 years ago, the only thing that will kill AGW is the actual weather data and that is what is slowly happening but we will need to wait a further 5 years or so for complete disappearance of the AGW theory
As an aside I note that Mosher seems to has suddenly toned down his “support” for the AGW and I would not be surprised that Dr Richard Betts (re hashed mean world temperature based on GISS, Hadcrut etc…) has as well LOL Hope I is wrong! hahaha
Sorry Prof Muller
Keep in mind: the british govt is heavily invested in ‘green’ industry, which can ONLY succeed if a bunch of countries get together and decide that everyone needs to believe in the global warming, and translate that belief into govt mandates, making a sure market for supporting the retirement pensions of all of these govt employees.
The UK govt has this department largely to solidify the idea that there really is global warming, and certain things must be done as govt policy.
This department is one of the instruments for sustaining this irrational cult belief/investment scheme.
For starters, check out the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investing: UNPRI.
Also, check out Al Gore’s investment management business, Generation Investment Management. They manage 5 billion of green investment capital, limited to LARGE investors only.
http://www.generationim.com/
http://www.unpri.org/signatories/signatories/
Eliza, as someone said earlier “Nimby” is an acronym for Not In My Back Yard. Nimbin is only a small town in a picturesque valley, but no doubt it is full of Nimbys.
Has Booker moved from the Telegraph to the Mail?
————-
Davey is no doubt channeling what he’s read about skeptics on sites like SkS, think Progress, etc., and in the environmental-organization newsletters his dept. subscribes to. He’s swilled the swill.
As the resident of a former British colony and inheritor of the Westminster parliamentary system I was astonished to read a UK Minister of the Crown denying citizens the right to free speech. A frenchman, Voltaire, had a better grasp of democratic free speech than Mr Davey when he said “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” Cheers from chilly Sydney.
All simply explained and clearly written. Nice.
Unfortunately politicians primarily talk to each other. Its a closed world. Think of them as the lords of four centuries ago. Lords talked to lords — not the peasants. Lords got their information from each other. Not till the peasants are breaking through the castle gate with pitch forks and torches in hand do the lords notice them. Today’s pitch forks and torches are the ballot box.
As we say in America — you got to throw the bums out.
Eugene WR Gallun
rogerknights says: June 5, 2013 at 9:22 pm
“…Has Booker moved from the Telegraph to the Mail?…”
————-
I don’t think so. It appears that he comments in The Daily Mail in addition to his usual commenting in the The Daily Telegraph.
I suppose that this is not surprising since he is freelance. I consider that this is good for climate sceptism since he gets to a wider audience by commenting in both Newspapers. Both newspapers are fairly conservative, and The Daily Mail has a wider audience.
The fact that Ed Davey is a bolts-in-the-side-of-the-neck-alarmist is self evident.
However, this is Ed Davey’s own description of himself.
For our American Friends, I will translate.
1. By taking a PPE degree at Oxford, Ed Davey demonstrates that he is intelligent, but not as smart as he thinks he is – the UK’s political establishment is littered with PPEs from Oxford.
2. He does not have a clue about any science.
3. He has never had a real job in the real world.
4. As a dedicated Liberal Democrat, he has to sign up to some of the goofiest ecoloon policies on the planet.
5. His MSc in Economics was obviously insufficient to provide him with the knowledge that promoting the highest cost electricity in Europe and looming brownouts and blackouts, the UK’s prospect for 2015 onwards, is unlikely to inspire economic growth and inward investment. It is more likely to inspire a brain drain and economic decline.
6. The UK’s current energy policy is totally insane. How can anyone imagine clear cutting the trees on the US eastern seaboard to burn as wood chippings in UK power stations is sane? What other country is goofy enough to legislate carbon policies which will make it impossible to burn natural gas after 2020?
My apologies for this rant, but Ed Davey stands for everything that embraces the alarmist cause and makes no economic sense whatsoever. The damage people like him have caused to western economies now runs into hundreds of billions of dollars and the sole result has been energy poverty for tens of millions of people and a smug, warm feeling for insincere politicians wanting to demonstrate their green credentials at any cost.
“I took a first class honours degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Jesus College, Oxford (1985-1988). Although I was not involved in any of the political societies at Oxford, I was active in a campaigning environmental group and was elected President of the College’s Junior Common Room. I helped organise Tactical Voting 87 in Oxford during the 1987 General Election, though I still had not joined any political party.
Post-University Career
After university, I became the Economics Researcher to the Liberal Democrats in Parliament, working in the Commons from 1989 to 1993, primarily for Alan Beith and Paddy Ashdown. I joined the party after starting work for them, partly because I was by then convinced the Lib Dems were the strongest mainstream party on the environment, partly because I realised I was really a “classic” Liberal and partly because Paddy Ashdown genuinely inspired me.
After becoming the party’s Senior Economics Advisor, I was closely involved in developing policies such as the penny on income tax for education and making the Bank of England independent. I was also in charge of costing the election manifesto in 1992. During this time, I studied in the evenings at Birkbeck College, London University, gaining an MSc in Economics.
In 1993, I left Parliament to work for a management consultancy firm called Omega Partners where I specialised in postal services. With Omega Partners, I visited 28 countries and worked on projects for Post Offices in countries such as Belgium, South Africa, Sweden and Taiwan. My work ranged from strategic market analysis to business forecasting.”
Paul
climate sensitivity does not exist, it is defined as how much temperatures change is produced by a change in CO2 levels.
Now unless changing CO2 levels actually do cause temperatures to change and are the dominant cause climate sensitivity has no physical existence.
CO2 levels have risen and temperatures have fallen for last 15 or so years – an existential problem for climate sensitivity.
There was a period when temperatures and CO2 levels appeared to go up together, some people postulated cause and effect. More recently temperatures have not declined whilst CO2 levels have continued to rise. So no cause and effect.
It seems most of this problem is caused by people expecting all relationships in nature to be linear.
Paul_K has post at Blackboard explaining in detail how he has identified cycles in temperature record.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/the-occams-razor-oscillatory-model/#more-22572
As they say in financial adverts “what goes up may come down”
Ed Davey was quoted as saying:
“Those who argue against all the actions we are taking to reduce emissions, without any serious and viable alternative, are asking us to take a massive gamble with the planet our children will inherit,”
Even if global warming were a real threat, his policies are utterly futile. Even if the UK disappeared down a black hole, our CO2 emissions would be replaced by China and India probably in a few weeks. China is engaged in a massive program of building coal powered stations, and they will be building 70 new airports in the next few years – and good luck to them. CO2 is the gas of life and increased levels are already bringing huge benefits to the world and humanity.
Of course, they’re always going on about our children. If Davey has his way, our children will inherit a nation that squandered its wealth on vast wind farms that don’t work most of the time or are actually rusting away. And the effect of this idiocy on the global climate: exactly zero.
Several decades ago Margaret Thatcher also talked about our children in a speech about climate change. But, years later, she came to realise that it is a scam based on bad and sometimes fraudulent science. Hopefully Ed Davey will eventually follow her. But I’m not holding my breath….
Chris
Delingpole on Ed Davey Makes the Silliest Speech Ever
Climate extremists like Mr. Davey will use the same tools of extremists have used throughout history, if they get the chance: Suppression of counter views, censorship of communication, harassment of those who disagree, creation of insider deals to enrich fellow believers and their pals.
Ed will be there on Rememberance Sunday wearing his Poppy withe the Queen and the rest of the British Cabinet.
Honouring the people who fought and still dying for Free Speech and Democracy in our country.
And our Ed wants to ban Climate Skeptics and Democratic Debate.
ED DAVEY also said on a BBC RADIO 4 program vs NIGEL LAWSON
Ed Davey:” Well, no, he is wrong on that. Let me take the science point that Lord Lawson said. Climate science suggests that there will be periods where the temperature does not rise. There will be pauses. That’s happened in the past. It happened in the beginning of the last century, happened in the 1950s, but these plateau effects, where you have a period where the average global temperature of the surface does not seem to rise, is actually expected in the science. But if you look what is happening in the temperature of the oceans at the moment, over the last 10 years that Lord Lawson was referring to, if you look at what is happening with the Arctic ice for example, you look at the sea levels, you see evidence that climate changing is continuing; ”
It is difficult to understand how we can still have a global temperature rise of 4 degrees C by 2060 which his government and Met Ofiice predict and still have no global warming until at least until after 2030/2040. It is just not going to happen. We are due for 20/30 years of flat or cooling global temperature s.[not the one 8 year period that Met Office models predicted over a 100 years ]. These past 20/30/40 year major cooling perods were never in their models. These happen every 60 years . There is a possibilty that there will be two cooler periods before 2100
Global SST have been flat for 16 years and show a decline during the last 10 years
Arctic Ice extent is recovering as the global temperatures cool
Ocean or sea levels show no abnormal rise [ rise at about 3 .3 mm/year]
So where is this evidence that he claims that exist for continued global warming. His government should instead focus more on how UK will survive the pending global cooling that will impact UK much more in the near term than some yet undefined situation 100 years from now.. The weather of December 2010, the March 2013 and the spring of 2013 are just the beginning and warning signals of much cooler weather for Uk in the decades ahead.
Ah, he is worth googling.
Liberal Democrat politician ( aka a lefty) he is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change since 2012
Attended Nottingham High School (in common with MPs Kenneth Clarke! , Geoff Hoon!! and Ed Balls) in the year above Ed Balls, where he was head boy in 1984. He furthered his education at Jesus College, Oxford where he was awarded a first class BA degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics in 1988.
As a teenager he worked at a Pork Pie factory ……
The thing is, that as Minister for Climate Change’, he must be congratulated on his performance as there has clearly been NONE during his tenure.
My political views coincided with much of those of the Liberal Democrats about 15 years ago: their views on mixed economies, localism and supporting the low paid curry favour with me.
I left that party when it became clear that it was a front for climate zealots, ‘wimmin’ and EU fanatics.
I am not against European cooperation in any way whatever, I am however against an undemocratic, anti-business corporatist oligopoly run by self-serving twits.
I am not against women doing very well: ask Condie Rice, Hillary Clinton and Theresa May for starters. I can’t abide all this surrogate marxism portrayed as victimhood.
Finally, I”m very much in favour of the earth surviving, human beings surviving and thriving and preparing for whatever variations, extremes and historical blips that come our way.
I do hope Mr Davey realises that more and more people agree with my three positions above.
He won’t be very long for politics if he can’t…..
Most ecogroups have moved beyond NIMBY and are now BANANAs. Build Absolutly Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
Ed Davey is surely a betrayal of The Enlightenment. When is this country going to stop his ilk from from getting into parliament? What is his constituency doing about it? Surely there must be sensible people there?
The letter does not mention the Oregon Petition, with 31,000+ signers – a lot more than the 1,m000 cited, and representing a far larger majority of skeptics over believers..
MR Davey said “Climate science suggests that there will be periods where the temperature does not rise. There will be pauses. That’s happened in the past. It happened in the beginning of the last century, happened in the 1950s, but these plateau effects, where you have a period where the average global temperature of the surface does not seem to rise, is actually expected in the science. ”
The problem is one of degrees . The models only project a decade or so in a century . Historical climate records show that between 1870 and 2010 , a period of 140 years , there was no net warming happening during 90 of those years . In another words during about 2/3 of the time there was no warming like 1870–1925 and again 1945-1980. So there is a big surprise coming to these climate models if they fail to understand the real climate and waht causes these major pauses. There is a possibilty that there waill be two such pauses before we reach 2100, which may void all their model projections .
why do you not cover the effects of Chemtrails?
[Reply: see the site Policy page. “Chemtrails” can easily get out of hand. — mod.
He’s not listening; like all LibDems he was born with all the knowledge he needs.
Facts just impede the implementation of the programme. (the programme is detailed in his weekly orders fron the EU Commission.)
I take a very British perspective on Ed Davey’s comments. He is a member of the minority Liberal-Democrat party, formerly the Liberal Party.
My late father (whose views I respected but do not share) voted for the Liberal party for over 50 years. He saw the Liberals as seeking the middle ground, by drawing on the best of the other parties, along with some independent ideas of their own.
Ed Davey, following Chris Huhne, seems to have betrayed that tradition, along with some other British traditions that have enriched the modern world.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/06/09/ed-daveys-anti-science-anti-british-and-anti-liberal-attack-on-climate-sceptics/
10) Energy Policy
You conclude by saying
“Those who argue against all the actions we are taking to reduce emissions, without any serious and viable alternative, are asking us to take a massive gamble with the planet our children will inherit,”
***************************************************************************************************
I see this all the time with regard to the “inheritance” threat. I suppose some people (mostly liberals/progressives) consider it ok to leave the huge public debt that is currently being run up, to future generations to pay back, but I don’t. Why are they so pious about a few ppm CO2 when they’re not worried about such massive debts. This is the really massive gamble. Blackmailing, guilt tripping hypocrites.
Steve T
I have put together a site to continue Daniel Curtis’s site http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~dcurtis/NETA.html which stopped updating last year, http://www.ukpowergeneration.info. I’m in the process of final data validation, please take a look and let me know of any comments. The site was a great source for viewing and comparing the sources of UK power generation, hopefully my site can provide a similar and improved functionality
What an excellent facility, quite an eye-opener. Not sure off the top of my head what extra info would be useful but I’ll give it some thought.
Would mean daily temperatures be available?
Thanks John, that is my next plan to add in CET as a clickable option.